The quote from Romans doesn't really fit your thesis. And nor should it, since it's only in the New Testament that you find the concept of an afterlife. The Old Testament had no such concept, there was no promise of eternity, the focus was on life in the here and now. I may be wrong, but I believe modern Judaism still does not have a concept of life after death, though with the cross pollination of beliefs over the last 2000 years that might not be accurate.
I wouldn't be advertising a website that horribly fails its validation, in a discussion about Web 2.0 greatness... YouTube: 192 errors Flickr: 18 errors Reddit: 28 errors MySpace: 210 errors (no surprise there)
Seems like he's in good company, after all.
(I also checked Digg, they had zero errors, so someone in that space is doing something right.)
There's a much stronger correlation between young male poverty and suicide bombing then there is to polygamy. No there's not. All of the 9/11 hijackers came from privileged backgrounds, and many of the foreigners streaming into Iraq are Saudi citizens (Arabs in Saudi Arabia are pretty well guaranteed an income for life along with some kind of make work job). If there's any correlation between suicide bombing and anything else, it's more than likely a combination of sexual repression and alienation in a "foreign" culture (most of the 9/11 hijackers had lived in Germany for several years).
Get these guys integrated into Western civilization and tell them it's OK to bang a chick once in a while, and most of the suicide bombers go away.
Speaking as a vet, I disagree with this sentiment. There's a world of difference between being able to follow orders and being able to discern which is the better course for the nation to take. An 18 year old can do the first one, but not the second. They simply don't have the life experience to make judgments that effect literally millions of people (if not billions).
Except the first time, when the Supreme Court stepped in to *stop the counting process*, which would have, it turned out, elected Gore if it had continued to the end. Now you're just lying. Every single recount found Bush won Florida. Besides which, the recounts, as they were happening, were illegal: the courts in Florida did not have the authority to order them, only the Secretary of State for Florida had any authority over the counting process.
Except the second time, when there was clearly chicanery in Ohio, which could have been exposed if the Democrats had been on their toes and challenged the election there. Which they didn't, being as corrupt as the Republicans. (How *do* you explain the mathematical discrepancies between the exit polls and the actual vote, which only varied significantly in precincts that Bush won?) I can think of three reasons the Democrats didn't challenge the election in Ohio: 1) There was no chicanery, and the professionals on the Democrat side realized that exit polls are nearly worthless. 2) The Democrats are in cahoots with the Republicans and wanted Bush to win (yeah, right). 3) The Democrats didn't want anyone looking too closely at Ohio, because then they might start looking too closely when they did something similar.
It could be either #1 or #3, I don't know. But since it was never proven in court that Ohio's count was manipulated, Bush still won according to the law.
I'm not arguing the ACCC is right. But they're certainly not after the money. No, but they are probably after the prestige. If they take down Google, it instantly elevates their visibility. At the very least, it gives pretty big bragging rights to the individuals at the ACCC who work on the case.
Is there anyone who doubts that Karl Rove has the wiretaps indexed for the most effective political control of both his Republican "friends" and Democratic enemies? I'm sure Rove knows who you are. I doubt it, but primarily because I think the man is utterly incompetent (along with his boss and just about everyone else who works at the White House or OEOB). I doubt he has the brain power to put together a nefarious plan like that.
I don't understand why the left fears Karl Rove like they do. If he was such a political master as some people think, the Democrats would not have won the last election and Bush's approval numbers wouldn't be as low as they are now.
No, only the once. Jesus, I'm sick of this shit. You people who spout this nonsense need to read a primer on the electoral college, what it is, and why it works they way it does (this post above does a good job of it). Hell, it wasn't even the first time a President was elected while losing the popular vote:
John Quincy Adams received 44,804 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson in the 1824 election Rutherford B. Hayes received 264,292 fewer votes than Samuel J. Tilden in the 1876 election Benjamin Harrison received 95,713 fewer votes than Grover Cleveland in the 1888 election George W. Bush received 543,895 fewer votes than Al Gore in the 2000 election.
Bush was elected according to the laws of this country, both times, completely legally. If you can't understand that, you shouldn't be voting in the first place.
I don't know if this why MARTA does this, but I can think of one legitimate reason for them to require you to "scan out", as it were: emergency rescues. If something went horribly wrong in the subway, authorities would likely want to know who was still down there. By having a database of who has scanned in but hasn't scanned out, it could make their job of identifying the bodies a little easier.
Granted, I doubt very much that this is actually the reason they do this. I'm just pointing forward one plausible reason for it.
There are three classes of criminal laws in the US: felony (murder, kidnapping, rape, the fun stuff); misdemeanor (jay walking, stealing something worth less than $1000, the stuff most people do on the weekends); and infraction (walking on the grass of a public building when the sign says not to, traffic violations, the stuff everyone does every day). Infractions aren't really criminal offenses, they're just excuses for the police to function as tax men and to levy fines on citizens.
This stuff really needs to be separate and non-partisan Agreed, but this is just the natural consequence of having the government run health research. Anything touched by government is going to be, by its very nature, political. I'm amazed at people expressing outrage at a political organization (the government) using (gasp!) politics to steer discussion, and stifle dissent.
I think people need to keep things like this in mind when they start blathering on about how great things would be if government ran all of health care. At least, as things stand currently, if someone wanted to research, say, embryonic stem cell research, they'd be able to find a separate source of funds other than the Federal government to fund that research. If the Feds ran health care, there wouldn't be an alternate source.
So if you don't like it when things like this happen, support smaller government that minds its own business more often than not. Because you will NEVER remove politics from any aspect of government, it's simply the nature of the beast. Better to starve that beast and avoid the problems in the first place.
it's used as a profit center for the mail carrier. If the tax went to recipients of the spam, who are after all the real victims here You have an interesting definition of "victim". Someone who uses Hotmail for their mail spends nothing to use that service. When they receive a given spam, it takes a minuscule amount of their time to delete it, assuming it gets past the spam filters. Microsoft, on the other hand, spends (thousands|millions) of dollars per (month|year) to provide this service, and processes (millions|billions) of emails per (day|month). With millions of subscribers, a single spam that goes to a sizable portion of that list will take up some real resources, resources the company could better use either for their own uses or that of their customers (I suppose this would in effect make the customers victims, too, but on a much smaller level as individuals).
That said, charging people to get around the spam filters is going to do nothing but infuriate their subscribers who will eventually leave for other services. In the long run, they're not really going to gain anything, at least not compared to how much they stand to lose. Just another example of a corporation seeking some short term gain and ignoring the long term peril they place themselves in.
Unfortunately, I don't have a useful suggestion for people who send out legitimate email and get caught up in this mess.
Someone already made this, it mashes up the data from Craigslist apartment listings with a map from Google Maps. Housing Maps. It's pretty cool, when I stumbled on it I had one of those why-didn't-I-think-of-that moments.
At least give every 16 to 35 year old male unfettered access to porn. Hell, give every 16 to 99 year old male the porn. I thought that was called "the internet"?
What makes her any better than anyone else? Gee, I dunno, how about the fact that she's a talented story teller, who can create an entire world that millions of people find entertaining? That seems pretty special to me.
And considering the fact that she managed to create this world while starving, I hardly think providing people free money or some sort of bogus* "living wage" would provide any more incentive than already exists. If anything, it removes the incentive of being able to eat.
*"Living wage" proponents never say where the money to fund that wage is going to come from, especially when it affects small businesses. They seem to expect it to just magically appear, without any associated costs rising (which would then mean the "living wage" no longer is).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but you know what they did have? Carriage returns.
And that's why it's a bad idea to drink before reading Slashdot. That chick is only a 10 after adding a six pack (even then, she's more like a 7).
The quote from Romans doesn't really fit your thesis. And nor should it, since it's only in the New Testament that you find the concept of an afterlife. The Old Testament had no such concept, there was no promise of eternity, the focus was on life in the here and now. I may be wrong, but I believe modern Judaism still does not have a concept of life after death, though with the cross pollination of beliefs over the last 2000 years that might not be accurate.
Google search: latex blog
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,150,000 English pages for latex blog. (0.22 seconds)
Top result:Latex - Sexy Latex Photography - Top Latex Blog - Latex Fetish.
Sorry, dude.
Flickr: 18 errors
Reddit: 28 errors
MySpace: 210 errors (no surprise there)
Seems like he's in good company, after all.
(I also checked Digg, they had zero errors, so someone in that space is doing something right.)
Judging by the 128 other people who made the same joke, I'd say "no".
Get these guys integrated into Western civilization and tell them it's OK to bang a chick once in a while, and most of the suicide bombers go away.
Speaking as a vet, I disagree with this sentiment. There's a world of difference between being able to follow orders and being able to discern which is the better course for the nation to take. An 18 year old can do the first one, but not the second. They simply don't have the life experience to make judgments that effect literally millions of people (if not billions).
1) There was no chicanery, and the professionals on the Democrat side realized that exit polls are nearly worthless.
2) The Democrats are in cahoots with the Republicans and wanted Bush to win (yeah, right).
3) The Democrats didn't want anyone looking too closely at Ohio, because then they might start looking too closely when they did something similar.
It could be either #1 or #3, I don't know. But since it was never proven in court that Ohio's count was manipulated, Bush still won according to the law.
Uh oh, this does not bode well.
Your dad's a fool. After all, I certainly know my ex-wife's name.
I don't understand why the left fears Karl Rove like they do. If he was such a political master as some people think, the Democrats would not have won the last election and Bush's approval numbers wouldn't be as low as they are now.
John Quincy Adams received 44,804 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson in the 1824 election
Rutherford B. Hayes received 264,292 fewer votes than Samuel J. Tilden in the 1876 election
Benjamin Harrison received 95,713 fewer votes than Grover Cleveland in the 1888 election
George W. Bush received 543,895 fewer votes than Al Gore in the 2000 election.
Bush was elected according to the laws of this country, both times, completely legally. If you can't understand that, you shouldn't be voting in the first place.
I don't know if this why MARTA does this, but I can think of one legitimate reason for them to require you to "scan out", as it were: emergency rescues. If something went horribly wrong in the subway, authorities would likely want to know who was still down there. By having a database of who has scanned in but hasn't scanned out, it could make their job of identifying the bodies a little easier.
Granted, I doubt very much that this is actually the reason they do this. I'm just pointing forward one plausible reason for it.
There are three classes of criminal laws in the US: felony (murder, kidnapping, rape, the fun stuff); misdemeanor (jay walking, stealing something worth less than $1000, the stuff most people do on the weekends); and infraction (walking on the grass of a public building when the sign says not to, traffic violations, the stuff everyone does every day). Infractions aren't really criminal offenses, they're just excuses for the police to function as tax men and to levy fines on citizens.
I think people need to keep things like this in mind when they start blathering on about how great things would be if government ran all of health care. At least, as things stand currently, if someone wanted to research, say, embryonic stem cell research, they'd be able to find a separate source of funds other than the Federal government to fund that research. If the Feds ran health care, there wouldn't be an alternate source.
So if you don't like it when things like this happen, support smaller government that minds its own business more often than not. Because you will NEVER remove politics from any aspect of government, it's simply the nature of the beast. Better to starve that beast and avoid the problems in the first place.
That said, charging people to get around the spam filters is going to do nothing but infuriate their subscribers who will eventually leave for other services. In the long run, they're not really going to gain anything, at least not compared to how much they stand to lose. Just another example of a corporation seeking some short term gain and ignoring the long term peril they place themselves in.
Unfortunately, I don't have a useful suggestion for people who send out legitimate email and get caught up in this mess.
Someone already made this, it mashes up the data from Craigslist apartment listings with a map from Google Maps. Housing Maps. It's pretty cool, when I stumbled on it I had one of those why-didn't-I-think-of-that moments.
Direct link to Houston listings.
Wow, that's awesome, it handles buffer overflows much better than Windows!
And considering the fact that she managed to create this world while starving, I hardly think providing people free money or some sort of bogus* "living wage" would provide any more incentive than already exists. If anything, it removes the incentive of being able to eat.
*"Living wage" proponents never say where the money to fund that wage is going to come from, especially when it affects small businesses. They seem to expect it to just magically appear, without any associated costs rising (which would then mean the "living wage" no longer is).